Comments or advices about my .fvwmrc ?

[e4ea]

I am using fvwm for a couple of days now on my OpenBSD system.
The version of fvwm is 2.2.5, the version which is default available in an OpenBSD system.
I was using TWM for more then a year, but some issues with Windows placement for Firefox did me decide to switch to fvwm.

Till now, I do like fvwm very much;

• the memory footprint is smaller
• speed is about the same as twm
• much more flexibility

I would like to know if there are things in my .fvwmrc which I could have done better.
If there are, please mention, we are never too old to learn…

Here is the link to my .fvwmrc file.

And ofcourse a screenshot (click to enlarge):

Jan

[thomasadam]

@e4ea

I am using fvwm for a couple of days now on my OpenBSD system.
The version of fvwm is 2.2.5, the version which is default available in an OpenBSD system.
I was using TWM for more then a year, but some issues with Windows placement for Firefox did me decide to switch to fvwm.

Till now, I do like fvwm very much;

• the memory footprint is smaller
• speed is about the same as twm
• much more flexibility

I would like to know if there are things in my .fvwmrc which I could have done better.
If there are, please mention, we are never too old to learn…

Here is the link to my .fvwmrc file.

And ofcourse a screenshot (click to enlarge):

Jan

Well, no one but myself can help you here, since 2.2.5 is ancient and no longer supported. But my memory goes back that far anyway. I really would urge you to use FVWM 2.5.24 since it fixes so many bugs since 2.2.5

Other than that it looks OK.
– Thomas Adam

[e4ea]

Hi Thomas,

Thanks for replying.

About the Fvwm version; using the packages which are available, so without compiling myself, I can choose between 2.2.5 and fwvm2-2.4.19 which is available as package in the OpenBSD package repository.

What I understand about the older fvwm versions is that they are using less memory, and patches are used to solve security issues/ large bugs.
I have thought about upgrading to 2.4.19, but could not find a good reason for my system… Till now I did not find any bugs bothering me, the window manager is super stable, fast and good looking.
2.4.19 is still not the latest, so why switching then?
Sorry if I am missing something here and there are good reasons to upgrade, I really hope to hear them then and ofcourse I will upgrade to 2.4.19 then…

About the way I have made my .fvwmrc no further comments, everything okay?

Btw., where can I find when releases are done? I was wondering when the 2.2.5, 2.4.19 and 2.5.24 where released…

Jan.

[thomasadam]

@e4ea

About the Fvwm version; using the packages which are available, so without compiling myself, I can choose between 2.2.5 and fwvm2-2.4.19 which is available as package in the OpenBSD package repository.

And this stops you compiling modern versions of software, because…?

@e4ea

What I understand about the older fvwm versions is that they are using less memory, and patches are used to solve security issues/ large bugs.

Really? Well, you can be sure of your first point in relative terms, but as for the second, you’re wrong. Again, just so you’re clear: you’re using a version of FVWM (and here’s the kicker): which is NO LONGER SUPPORTED.

By “no longer supported” I mean anyone who’s worth their salt (hint: You can count them all on one hand. ) will tell you that it’s not the fact the software is old, it’s more to do that with the problems you will encounter using that version of FVWM with anything modern (i.e., within the last four years – even things like gvim) will all be using various EWMH-related things which your version of FVWM won’t understand. This will cause you no end of grief, and there’s no one else here who can help you with your version of FVWM besides me.

If you want support, you need to be a sheep, I’m afraid. Even using the latest 2.4.X FVWM version won’t help you – you’re going to find no end of examples on these boards dealing with 2.5.X – and I’ll reiterate once more that’s the version you want to use.

Unsupported means unsupported.

This information ought, no wait… needs to be relayed to the OBSD maintainer for the FVWM port. If he isn’t dead by now, it seems he’s still living with the dinosaurs and they went the way of the dodo some time ago…

@e4ea

About the way I have made my .fvwmrc no further comments, everything okay?

From a stylistic point of view? It’s fine. For anything else? Well, if it works for you sobeit. I generally don’t bother to correct people for minutiae any more.

@e4ea

Btw., where can I find when releases are done? I was wondering when the 2.2.5, 2.4.19 and 2.5.24 where released…

They’re called Changelogs… well, well, as I live and breath:

fvwm.org/news/

Amazing what you can find…

– Thomas Adam

[e4ea]

Hi Thomas,

I will try to find the maintainer of the Obsd fvwm package. I did not have any idea about how old even the 2.4.19 version was, but you are right, they are prehistorical…

About the news page, I did not find the 2.2.5 version, so I guess this version was released even before 2000 or so…

About compiling myself; I have done this for several years on my windows and Linux systems.
Now I have choosen to work with available packages, knowing that I have to make choices so now and then… But the repository is that large that till now I never missed a package I wanted. Except of the right version

In any case, thanks for answering my questions. I can understand you are not correcting people anymore about configuration file layouts, and I do appreciate the time you have taken to answer.

So, as conclusion, I will stay with 2.2.5 for the moment and hope I can come back soon to tell I have a working 2.5.24 on my system

Jan.

[e4ea]

Hmm, at the moment I am in the middle of a discussion about this on the obsd irc…
It seems fvwm changed it license, so it is not included anymore…
The answer on the irc: tell him to release it under the BSDL and it will be updated…

[thomasadam]

@e4ea

Hmm, at the moment I am in the middle of a discussion about this on the obsd irc…
It seems fvwm changed it license, so it is not included anymore…
The answer on the irc: tell him to release it under the BSDL and it will be updated…

Ah, well that’s not my decision, and I see absolutely no reason why we should update the licence to accommodate OBSD. Then my original answer stands: Compile it yourself.

– Thomas Adam

[e4ea]

[e4ea]

Hi Thomas I guess, because I think others can’t help in this case.

Discussion is still going on, and in the meantime I am using my fvwm 2.2.5 with full satisfaction.
It is exactly doing what I want, except for one point.

I do have a window options menu to maximize my windows vertical or horizontal, and to delete or destroy a window. On TWM I had options to move a window to the left half of the screen, the right, the top or the bottom.
In fact for fvwm this could be something like
AddToFunc MoveToLeft

• “I” Maximize 100 0
• “I” OPTION TO MOVE A WINDOW TO LEFT SIDE OF THE SCREEN

Do you have an idea if there is a function/ option available in version 2.2.5 to do this?

Jan

Edit:

Okay, I am a little further now, in fact the basics were very simple:

[code]AddToFunc MoveToLeft “I” Maximize 50 100

•   		"I"	Move 0 0 Warp
  

AddToFunc MoveToRight “I” Maximize 50 100

•   		"I"	Move -0 +0 Warp
  

AddToFunc MoveToTop “I” Maximize 100 50

•   		"I"	Move +0 +0 Warp
  

AddToFunc MoveToBottom “I” Maximize 100 50

•   		"I"	Move -0 -0 Warp[/code]
  

The point is now, that I want fvwm to forget the last action, so a next maximize will not result in an unmaximize. Is this possible?

Jan

Edit:

Some other changes done too.
Memory usage only a 650k now, 4 desktops, and all functionality which I had plus some things extra.
Only point is my question from above…

Here is my latest .fvwmrc (note: for fvwm version 2.2.5!!!)

Jan

[thomasadam]

@e4ea

Discussion is still going on, and in the meantime I am using my fvwm 2.2.5 with full satisfaction.
It is exactly doing what I want, except for one point.

I’m told 2.4.X is available for OBSD – can’t you use that? I’m told it’s in something called ‘base’, but since I know nothing about OBSD (and intend to keep it that way) you can investigate that on your own.

@e4ea

The point is now, that I want fvwm to forget the last action, so a next maximize will not result in an unmaximize. Is this possible?

Not with the version you’re using. It’s not supported, remember?

You’re going to get a lot of replies like this. At least FVWM 2.4.X would fair a little better but has no proper test comparisons that would make it easy for you to do what you want. You want FVWM 2.5.X for that – you know, the version I’ve been throwing at you all along?

[…snip silly memory usage comparison…]

– Thomas Adam

[e4ea]

I think I have told you that myself

And I think I have told you myself I will keep using this version till I know what OBSD decides to do.
Then I will decide to compile 2.5.x myself, keep using 2.2.5, or switch to another WM.
Till then, I enjoy using 2.2.5

But, message is clear, I am on my own and have to find things out myself.

Jan.

P.S., to be clear, I do not blame you or whatever, and I do understand your point of view

[morbusg]

Hi e4ea,
nice to see you’re using obsd. In terms of fvwm, though, does it now use a 2.4.x as default? It used to have a 1.x from the get-go. Definately I’d recommend sticking to the one it comes with (or if you want something fresher, the one from the packages). Anywhere else though, I’d too (along with Thomas) recommend to go with compiling yourself.

[e4ea]

Hi morbusg,

I guess you are an obsd’er also then?

After a long road along Dos, Windows 98, NT and XP, Linux in several distro’s, I decided to switch to bsd. For a long time I already had the idea OpenBSD would be the best choice for me; simple straight forward in setup, lean, stable, very secure and no bloat after a default install.
When I switched to bsd, I have tested the four ‘big ones’, netbsd, freebsd, dragonfly and openbsd. I decided to choose for the one with focus on stability and security, although the others are also very good, stable and secure.

About fvwm, you are right, in the past they had a 1.x version in the ‘get-go’ as you mention it.
There is a discussion going on at the moment because in a default install they do have twm, fvwm and cwm included, but it would be a more logic way to exclude the window managers or at least deliver only one with a default install.
I guess this will be cwm then, because it is made by an obsd developer and is know as very lean, fast, stable… and without any bug or security issue.
At this moment the ‘default’ fvwm is 2.2.5 where 2.4.19 is available from the repository.
There I think it would be more logic, when they keep it the old way with three wm’s included, to include 2.4.19 instead of 2.2.5. I am curious if Theo is willing to listen and finally to change that… we will see…

About compiling, I have done that for several years.
In fact, for example for Vector Linux, Zenwalk Linux and some others I also supplied packages.
But as you probably know, this is taking a lot of time, you get a lot of questions from people using old and unsupported versiones… 8).
At a moment I decided to stop with my websites and to use the time which came free to rebuild my house, to spend with my friends and family and to use for other positive things.
Not that compiling and sitting my computer gave me negative feelings, but you can only spend your time once, and then… sometimes… you have to make choices
And the nice part about the obsd repo is that all packages I am using, are in the repo and till now nothing I needed was missing…

Okay, that’s it for the moment. This is a fvwm forum, not some kind of psychologic forum, so I will stop talking now.

Happy new year to everyone!
Jan

[morbusg]

@e4ea

I guess you are an obsd’er also then?

BSD’er alright. Darwin ATM, OBSD before that, NBSD before that, FBSD before that, etc.

@e4ea

(about cwm)…and without any bug or security issue.

I don’t think that can be said about any piece of software.

@e4ea

At this moment the ‘default’ fvwm is 2.2.5 where 2.4.19 is available from the repository.

Well, no problem there, as 2.4.20 is the latest stable version. The manuals for stable can be found from: fvwm.org/documentation/manpages/stable/

@e4ea

I am curious if Theo is willing to listen and finally to change that

I don’t think Theo can be everywhere all the time, ie. it will be up to the “port” manager which version to go with. I’d sure hope Theo would be using fvwm, ofcourse

So much possibilites… so much possibilities to use with obsd. I’ve actually just lately observed one company’s take on graphical configuration on a well-known smtp-software, and was thinking a similar approach could be rather easily accomplished with fvwm…

@e4ea

Not that compiling and sitting my computer gave me negative feelings, but you can only spend your time once, and then… sometimes… you have to make choices

Heh, I hear you. That’s what I liked about obsd. Binary sys updates etc.

@e4ea

Okay, that’s it for the moment. This is a fvwm forum, not some kind of psychologic forum, so I will stop talking now.

Happy new year to everyone!
Jan

Happy new year to you too! Nice to have a OBSD’er around!

[e4ea]

I was wondering why you have switched to Darwin…

Btw., do you mean gnu-Darwin or the apple Darwin?

Jan

[morbusg]

^ Apple Darwin. I had some characterset problems I couldn’t overcome with OBSD.

[e4ea]

That’s a pity…

[e4ea]

Latest .fvwmrc file can be found here (note: for fvwm version 2.2.5!!!)

[e4ea]

Nothing else to say, I completely agree.

Although, I have changed more then only the colorsetting, it is more then sufficient for my needs.

Because it seems pastebin is deleting pastes even when ‘pasted forever’ here my latest fvwmrc
pasted at paste2.org ]http://paste2.org/p/13617[/url]
pasted at pastebin.ca]http://pastebin.ca/906119[/url]

Jan